Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

OKIE QUOTE:

If I go to an auto mechanic advertising car repair, is he not allowed to legally tell me I have other options besides fixing the car? ?
..........................

No, he only has the legal obligation to determine, what is wrong with the car, that he can fix.

Same thing as when an owner is trying to sell his house. He is under no obligations to tell the prospective buyer what is wrong with the house. His obligation is to answer questions posed by the prospective buyer. That's all.

0 Replies

quote="kelticwizard"

Glad you brought the retail store analogy up. If a retail store advertises that is has a 300 watt per channel amp on sale for $199, then it has to have a stock of those units rated at 300 watts on hand or else they are open to prosecution.

At the time, the ad is placed in the paper, the store must have on hand the 300 watt per channel amp on hand. However, something could happen between the time the ad is placed and the time the store opens. What if the store burns down?

0 Replies

Quote:

Same thing as when an owner is trying to sell his house. He is under no obligations to tell the prospective buyer what is wrong with the house. His obligation is to answer questions posed by the prospective buyer. That's all.

Thats not true.
A home seller is required to inform a potential buyer of any problems with the house (termites,water leaks,electrical or plumbing problems,etc)

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
With his credentials and background, if John Leo is not a credible source, who would be?

Yeah, a conservative columnist, writing an opinion piece, for RealClearPolitics, how can you say that's not "a reliable source which cannot be said to be anti-abortion, or anti-ACLU"??

Then again,if I remember several past threads where the topic came up correctly, Foxfyre doesn't actually see any difference in credibility between an opinion column and a news story - as long as the person writing the opinion column has a good education and stuff.

I've tried to ask whether, well, I've had an excellent education, so does that mean any of my longer opinion posts here should be taken as seriously as any major newspaper's news story? But I dont remember whether there was an answer to that.

I see no difference in information presented whether it is presented in a news story or by an informed syndicated columnist. What difference do you see between the two?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I see no difference in information presented whether it is presented in a news story or by an informed syndicated columnist. What difference do you see between the two?

Now I'm wondering - or not.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

OKIE QUOTE:

If I go to an auto mechanic advertising car repair, is he not allowed to legally tell me I have other options besides fixing the car? ?
..........................

No, he only has the legal obligation to determine, what is wrong with the car, that he can fix.

Same thing as when an owner is trying to sell his house. He is under no obligations to tell the prospective buyer what is wrong with the house. His obligation is to answer questions posed by the prospective buyer. That's all.

We aren't talking about what he has to do, but instead what he can do. An auto mechanic can give all kinds of advice and information. So can somebody that is selling a house. The customer doesn't have to take the advice or even listen, that is their choice. Same with the abortion services, give the advice and counseling all they want, and the customer can do what they want. Nothing that rises to the level of fraud unless they were charged for something they didn't want.

The real point of it all is this: if a customer is not charged a fee for anything that he was mislead into believing was something else, I don't think it rises to the level of fraud. "Abortion services" is kind of on the edge but is not much different in my opinion than "pregnancy services" or "planned parenthood" or similar phrases where the main purpose is to talk the girls into getting an abortion for the purpose of making money. Perhaps the girls went there with the idea of offering their children for adoption? You can't tell much about many of these types of places by their names, as to what they are pushing there. You have to go there and talk to them.

I can recall many times where the name of a business fooled me as to what I could obtain there. It wasn't fraud, but just ambiguity of some names. I would think most people have experienced that.

I would not run the business and name it "abortion services," but neither would I name a business "planned parenthood" if my business was performing abortions. But I would not attempt to legislate these types of things that closely. It would be a huge can of worms. Picking on just this one little thing called abortion services is very selectively picking on them because of a pro-abortion agenda, thats all it is. There are far more important things to worry about.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

You are mad at them for operating within the confines of the law. If you are mad at them for beating the baby killers at their own game then fine but it shouldn't take new laws to try and beat them....They are acting within the law

I am not arguing-and never have argued-that what these anti-choice centers are doing is presently illegal. For the sake of argument, I will allow that there are no laws against it at this time. What I have been pointing out is that the practice of listing an anti-abortion center under a listing of Abortion Services is a fraudulent, deceptive practice. That the whole purpose of listing an anti-abortion center under the Abortion Services listing is to lure people in who are seeking abortions and to set professionally trained convincers upon them to try to change their mind.

The women who go to these centers are seeking abortions, or are at least seeking information from people who perform then. They are NOT going into these centers thinking, "Well, I'd like to hear some advice about my situation from people who are opposed to abortion-what do they have to offer?" If these anti-abortion centers clearly labelled themselves as being anti-abortion, made clear in their advertising that they intend to offer only alternatives to abortions, not abortions themselves, and did not list themselves under Abortion Services, then I would not be seeking any laws against them at all.

But they are not doing that. They are intentionally deceiving people in their advertising, and that should be made illegal.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

no more than I think "Planned Parenthood" should be forced to change their name.

I really wish you would quit insulting our intelligence by trying to establish an equivalence between the name Planned Parenthood and the deception these anti-choice centers are carrying out. Planned Parenthood is NOT a deceptive name. There are three ways of of preventing biological parenthood until the woman desires it-abstinence, birth control and abortion.

Abstinence doesn't need a counselor to explain it to anyone. That leaves birth control and abortion. Planned Parenthood was founded for the dissemination of birth control information, the organization has been committed to making birth control available from the very beginning, and contraception is a big, big part of what Planned Parenthood does. Claiming that Planned Parenthood is practicing deception unless they change their name to Planned Abortion is utter nonsense. Planned Parenthood is about a lot more than abortion, and always has been.

Here is a website which explains what Planned Parenthood is about. Notice the focus on contraception.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If I go to an auto mechanic advertising car repair, is he not allowed to legally tell me I have other options besides fixing the car? Maybe he tells me the fix is going to cost me too much, so he tells me it isn't wise to fix it, that I should explore other options.

Yes, he can-and if the fellow actually fixed cars for a living, there would be no scam or deception involved. For instance, out of 100 customers who come to him for car repair, if he fixes 95 and tells the other 5 that the cost of repairs would exceed the value of the car, there is nothing wrong with that.

But suppose I go to a guy advertising car repair services who tells me it is not worth fixing my car, and he leads me into buying a used car from him. Then I find out that the fellow in fact never fixes any cars, he just advises people that the car is not worth fixing and tries to sell them a used car. Is that fellow running a scam? You know he is-he's representing himslf as a mechanic when in fact he is simply a car salesman!

When these anti-abortion centers advertise unde the heading of Abortion Services, they are acting just like the phony mechanic is acting. Out of every 100 women who answer their ad under Abortion Services, exactly 100 will be counseled NOT to have an abortion. They will NOT help any women who say, "Despite what you've told me, I've decided to get an abortion anyway. What do I do to get one?"

I simply don't see how any center which will NEVER help a woman get an abortion is not perpetrating fraud when they advertise under Abortion Services. The practice should be made illegal, like other frauds which have been made illegal.

0 Replies

There are "no laws" against it at this time, says Keltic Wizard. But Keltic Wizard's sense of morality is outraged!!! I wonder if he has ever seen a partial-birth abortion performed. I have. I wonder if Keltic Wizard's outraged morality would come into play then?

0 Replies

As a member of a medical profession you at least should know it better.

(Or have you watched that as a voyeur?)

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
You are mad at them for operating within the confines of the law. If you are mad at them for beating the baby killers at their own game then fine but it shouldn't take new laws to try and beat them....They are acting within the law

I am not arguing-and never have argued-that what these anti-choice centers are doing is presently illegal. For the sake of argument, I will allow that there are no laws against it at this time. What I have been pointing out is that the practice of listing an anti-abortion center under a listing of Abortion Services is a fraudulent, deceptive practice. That the whole purpose of listing an anti-abortion center under the Abortion Services listing is to lure people in who are seeking abortions and to set professionally trained convincers upon them to try to change their mind.

The women who go to these centers are seeking abortions, or are at least seeking information from people who perform then. They are NOT going into these centers thinking, "Well, I'd like to hear some advice about my situation from people who are opposed to abortion-what do they have to offer?" If these anti-abortion centers clearly labelled themselves as being anti-abortion, made clear in their advertising that they intend to offer only alternatives to abortions, not abortions themselves, and did not list themselves under Abortion Services, then I would not be seeking any laws against them at all.

But they are not doing that. They are intentionally deceiving people in their advertising, and that should be made illegal.

I don't see why you have such at issue with these centers giving women all the info. Of course they are going to talk them out of it but it is up to the woman to decide what she wants to do. After all it sounds like you belong to the pro-choice movement am I right? If that is so why do you want to limit women to only once choice when it comes to abortion counseling?

You also claim that women only go into abortion clinics to get abortions. If this is so does that make it a 100% success rate for every customer that walks through the door of an abortion clinic? I don't believe it is. I think there are many women who walk in listen and walk right out again only to keep the baby and let it live instead of letting it be killed.

You want to silence to opposition you want to make it illegal for them to offer a different opinion. You want a woman to walk into an abortion clinic and be talked into an abortion if she is on the fence about getting one. You don't want a choice you are being anti-choice which is the opposite of what you support. You only want one option in the game and that isn't how it works. You keep calling the anti-abortion counselors "trained convincers" but when a woman walks into an abortion clinic isn't that what they do? Convince them that their best option is an abortion? There are a couple of different routes they can take but their primary objective is to sell an abortion. I really don't see the difference between the two. You do because you want abortions to be performed and you don't want women talked out of it. That is what is really scary here not that fact that they have an option but that you don't want them to have an option. You are not pro-choice; you are anti-choice of the killing kind.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

okie wrote:
no more than I think "Planned Parenthood" should be forced to change their name.

I really wish you would quit insulting our intelligence by trying to establish an equivalence between the name Planned Parenthood and the deception these anti-choice centers are carrying out. Planned Parenthood is NOT a deceptive name.

Sorry, but it seems deceptive to me. Their main business is preventing parenthood by providing contraception and abortion, not carrying it out, planned or not planned. I can remember when I was very young and first came across the name, and remember being surprised at what they really do vs what their name was. I thought it was a strange and misleading choice of name. Now that I know what its about, I couldn't care less, and have no intention of trying to outlaw their name. And I think this point amply demonstrates the hypocrisy of your argument, as well as the hypocrisy of the ACLU.

And Baldimo explains the issue very well.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

If that is so why do you want to limit women to only once choice when it comes to abortion counseling?

This is ridiculous. Your own post quotes me as saying, "If these anti-abortion centers clearly labelled themselves as being anti-abortion, made clear in their advertising that they intend to offer only alternatives to abortions, not abortions themselves, and did not list themselves under Abortion Services, then I would not be seeking any laws against them at all."

Now how you twist this around claiming I want to limit women to only one choice is amazing. My statement speaks for itself, and in now shape size or form implies that centers which counsel women NOT to get abortions should be made illegal.

Baldimo wrote:

You want to silence to opposition you want to make it illegal for them to offer a different opinion.

This is a lie. Find me one statement where I said it should be made illegal for a center to offer anti-abortion counseling. My entire thrust is that these centers not misrepresent themselves, I have never said anything but that, and the people reading this thread know that to be truth.

Baldimo wrote:

You only want one option in the game and that isn't how it works.

No, I only want a woman to dealt with honestly when she makes a choice as to who to see for counseling. When a woman walks into a Planned Parenthood clinic, she knows full well she is seeing people who provide abortions and that she should take that into consideration when listening to them.

When a woman looks under Abortion Services and walks through the door of a center which will NEVER counsel or aid any woman to get an abortion, that woman is being deceived. You keep trying to ignore that fact, as if your distortions and accusations can silence members who speak out against the fraud these anti-abortion centers are committing.

In these last two posts you have revealed yourself as a zealot who can only spout out untruths and accusations when his position is shown to be indefensible.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

[Sorry, but it [the name Planned Parenthood] seems deceptive to me. Their main business is preventing parenthood by providing contraception and abortion, not carrying it out, planned or not planned.

Please explain how preventing unplanned parenthood is contradictory to the name Planned Parenthood. Are you trying to claim that women who successfully planned their pregnancy suddenly find themselves being conned into going into Planned Parenthood?

Don't be ridiculous.

okie wrote:

And I think this point amply demonstrates the hypocrisy of your argument, as well as the hypocrisy of the ACLU.

I think it amply demonstrates that you are desperate to create an equivalence between Planned Parenthood being honest in their advertising and presentation, and the anti-choice people being dishonest. To repeat-any center which will counsel 100% of the women who enter it to NOT get an abortion is being dishonest and fraudulent when they advertise themselves under the heading Abortion Services.

0 Replies

Mr.Hinteler does not appear to understand that the USA does not have as "restrictive" a society as GERMANY. My presence at a partial-birth abortion was approved by the family of the girl because of involvement in a lawsuit against a young man who had been a student with the girl in a school which I administered.

And I repeat--

There are "no laws" against it at this time, says Keltic Wizard. But Keltic Wizard's sense of morality is outraged!!! I wonder if he has ever seen a partial-birth abortion performed. I have. I wonder if Keltic Wizard's outraged morality would come into play then?

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Mr.Hinteler does not appear to understand that the USA does not have as "restrictive" a society as GERMANY.

When you call the right of privacy restrictive, you are correct.

0 Replies

I am very much afraid, Mr. Walter Hinteler, that you are not aware of the foundations of the so called "right of privacy" in the USA.

The circumstances surrounding the socalled "right of privacy" are crucial in determining whether the right indeed is pertinent in different cases. Since I am certain that you were not present at the event and know nothing about the case and the legal circumstances surrounding it, you are singularly unqualified to comment on it utilizing the so called "right to privacy".

The great judicial scholar, Richard A. Posner,has pointed out that

quote
"Privacy is a private good of great value but sometimes a social bad. A high level or privacy is also a source of potentially acute dangers to the social order, Crime, subversion and fraud are all facilitated by privacy so it natural and not reprehensible that Society has fought the trend toward greater privacy with such devices as wiretapping and computerized data bases of personal information"
endof quote

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

I am very much afraid, Mr. Walter Hinteler, that you are not aware of the foundations of the so called "right of privacy" in the USA.

Your fear is and was in vain: I'm very much aware of it.
(And actually, I didn't get my knowledge by reading only one favourite judge's writings but by studying law.)

And I've learnt to answer to responses correctly, i.e. not to try to understand something which isn't there: I mentioned with no word the privacy in the USA but was only referring to the situation here.

And here, in Germany, the right of privacy is a so-called basic law in our 'Basic Law', which is our constituion. (Article 1 [Human dignity], Article 2 [Personal Freedoms].)

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Please explain how preventing unplanned parenthood is contradictory to the name Planned Parenthood. Are you trying to claim that women who successfully planned their pregnancy suddenly find themselves being conned into going into Planned Parenthood?

Don't be ridiculous.

They should have named themselves "Unplanned Parenthood Prevention Services." They have little to do with planned parenthood as far as I could see on their website. Its all about preventing unplanned parenthood. Anyway, the debate about Planned Parenthood is only a side issue. I used it as only one example of countless ones that could be cited concerning business names and phrases connected to the services that a business renders.

If you want to talk about hypocrisy of names, what about pro-choice? As Baldimo points out, you are not much about pro-choice, or even pro-consideration of any other choice besides abortion. And of course the aborted child has no choice whatsoever. What kind of choice is that? None.

Quote:

I think it amply demonstrates that you are desperate to create an equivalence between Planned Parenthood being honest in their advertising and presentation, and the anti-choice people being dishonest. To repeat-any center which will counsel 100% of the women who enter it to NOT get an abortion is being dishonest and fraudulent when they advertise themselves under the heading Abortion Services.

I am not desperate at all. I didn't create the equivalence. Its already there to some extent. Planned Parenthood are the ones using the name, not me. If you want to be honest, apply the same rules to everybody.

I've never said the advertisement under abortion services could not be misleading. I only contend that misleading does not necessarily constitute fraud. Besides, the service has something to do with abortion. They provide counseling in regard to abortion, which is a service. Misleading advertising is rampant, both intentional and unintentional, and little of it is ever prosecuted because it falls in a gray area. People have a brain and they should use it. You claim its all about choice. Well, use your brain and choose then. None of these centers are forcing anyone not to have an abortion, no more than a pregnancy center or Planned Parenthood forces the people not to become a parent.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

When you call the right of privacy restrictive, you are correct.

In regard to the "right to privacy," that issue has always been mysterious to me in terms of how the courts can construe such a thing into whatever they would wish. A so called right to privacy has nothing to do with many crimes. You cannot commit a crime in private and claim the right to privacy. Theres all kinds of things that individuals in private cannot do, such as prostitution, manufacture of drugs, etc.

Not being a lawyer, thank goodness, I think the concept of the "right to privacy" is simply not constitutionally applicable in the way it is being applied to abortion and potentially in other issues as well.

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know